How does the US stop being politically polarized?

[5280]

Well, what should both parties do to let the country vote like 1980/1984 and 1932/1936?  What will get rid of the political divide?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Secession of the South.

[Frodo]

Generational replacement.  All you need is patience...   

[LastVoter]

Proper worker representation.

[Donerail]

Secession of the South.

With the Plains and the West.

[TNF]

Reduce income inequality.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There needs to be less people like you.

[5280]

There needs to be less people like you.

Not going to happen.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There needs to be less people like you.

Not going to happen.

Well, then don't ask this question.

[morgieb]

Ideology/platform changes.

[5280]

There needs to be less people like you.

Not going to happen.

Well, then don't ask this question.

If have every right to ask the question and you can't stop me from doing so.

[Niemeyerite]

There needs to be less people like you.

Not going to happen.

Well, then don't ask this question.

If have every right to ask the question and you can't stop me from doing so.

How does those damn Socialists become the 3rd party in Spain? I have the right to ask that, but you'd have the right to consider me an idiot.

[LiberalJunkie]

Getting rid of Fox News.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Getting rid of Fox News.

^ In all seriousness this isn't a bad answer. Fixing how people get their information would be the biggest start.

[DC Al Fine]

Getting rid of Fox News.

^ In all seriousness this isn't a bad answer. Fixing how people get their information would be the biggest start.

Cough *MSNBC* Cough Cough

[Peter the Lefty]

Having a multi-party system so that one doesn't have to be simply "one or the other."

[LiberalJunkie]

Getting rid of Fox News.

^ In all seriousness this isn't a bad answer. Fixing how people get their information would be the biggest start.

Cough *MSNBC* Cough Cough

MSNBC brings facts to the table. Fox pulls things out of their ass.

[Donerail]

Getting rid of Fox News.

^ In all seriousness this isn't a bad answer. Fixing how people get their information would be the biggest start.

Cough *MSNBC* Cough Cough

MSNBC brings facts to the table. Fox pulls things out of their ass.

No, they really don't... MSNBC is attempting to be Fox for liberals, and in the process has become even
ore hackish than them. See a new Pew Research report.

[Franzl]

Getting rid of Fox News.

^ In all seriousness this isn't a bad answer. Fixing how people get their information would be the biggest start.

Cough *MSNBC* Cough Cough

MSNBC brings facts to the table. Fox pulls things out of their ass.

No, they really don't... MSNBC is attempting to be Fox for liberals, and in the process has become even
ore hackish than them. See a new Pew Research report.

Hackishness doesn't equal misinformation and outright lying. Those are what FOX is good at.

[opebo]

There needs to be less people like you.

Not going to happen.

Actually it is a near certainty that there will be a lot less people like you, as a percentage of the electorate.

Seriously folks, there is no solution to political polarization under an unreformed capitalist system - the cannibalism is just too obvious and glaring.  Ameliorate that just a little bit, and the cattle will stop their lowing.

[Donerail]

Getting rid of Fox News.

^ In all seriousness this isn't a bad answer. Fixing how people get their information would be the biggest start.

Cough *MSNBC* Cough Cough

MSNBC brings facts to the table. Fox pulls things out of their ass.

No, they really don't... MSNBC is attempting to be Fox for liberals, and in the process has become even
ore hackish than them. See a new Pew Research report.

Hackishness doesn't equal misinformation and outright lying. Those are what FOX is good at.

I would think that their bias has reached a point where it could be categorized as misinformation.

[traininthedistance]

What will get rid of the political divide?

Bring back the USSR.  Seriously.

There are two main reasons:

1) The existence of another superpower, one which is nuclear-armed and openly antagonistic to us in actions and ideology, will do wonders for getting "both sides" to see their commonalities and present a united face to the world.

2) It will get rid of the ridiculous idea which has gained currency among right-leaning media that the Democrats are "socialist" or "far-left" or anything like that.  A real, live, breathing example of actual socialism in action will be able to disprove that idea pretty easily, and that'll cool down our division and recenter us a bit.

And no, China won't fit the bill.  They call it "communism" but it's really just been authoritarian capitalism for decades now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The USSR has little to do with the problem, really.

Let's face it: the political polarization experienced by the US is a phenomenon deliberately engineered by a collection of corporate and religious interests known as the "Conservative movement", which since the late 1970s has proceeded to take over the Republican party, making it break the post-New Deal consensus. This movement has created its own ideological bubble, to which it has gradually subjected a large share of the electorate, a bubble where its radical agenda (basically getting the country back to the 1920s) is considered "common sense" and where everyone who disagrees is called a "socialist" or some similar epithet. How can a sound, healthy political dialogue exist in these conditions? And no, the Democratic Party has absolutely no responsibility in this development. NONE. Heck, they even actually tried to appease the confrontation. Clinton basically embraced all of Reagan's legacy, just adding that maybe it would be nice to have some public health care. How did Republicans react? They pretended they were for public health care, but a different one, and used this excuse to filibuster Clinton's. Then, they attempted to impeach him for the most frivolous reason ever. And 16 years later, when Obama actually embraced what was the Republicans' plan at the time, they deemed it "socialist" and did everything they could to block it! And that was only the beginning of a policy consisting in filibustering everything that didn't fit 100% to their dogma. Every time they had an occasion to, they blackmailed the President threatening to destroy the country unless they got what they wanted. Every. Single. Time. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine questioned Obama's patriotism (and heck, even his birthplace!) and called him an evil socialist muslim atheist, and spun whatever little thing they could find to make his life miserable.

This is the sad reality of American politics: one side has become completely insane and so focused to enact its radical agenda that it has lost any sense of the public good. No matter how conciliatory the other side can be (and hell, they have been), things won't change until the crazies get their ass kicked and finally die away.

[traininthedistance]

The USSR has little to do with the problem, really.

Let's face it: the political polarization experienced by the US is a phenomenon deliberately engineered by a collection of corporate and religious interests known as the "Conservative movement", which since the late 1970s has proceeded to take over the Republican party, making it break the post-New Deal consensus. This movement has created its own ideological bubble, to which it has gradually subjected a large share of the electorate, a bubble where its radical agenda (basically getting the country back to the 1920s) is considered "common sense" and where everyone who disagrees is called a "socialist" or some similar epithet. How can a sound, healthy political dialogue exist in these conditions? And no, the Democratic Party has absolutely no responsibility in this development. NONE. Heck, they even actually tried to appease the confrontation. Clinton basically embraced all of Reagan's legacy, just adding that maybe it would be nice to have some public health care. How did Republicans react? They pretended they were for public health care, but a different one, and used this excuse to filibuster Clinton's. Then, they attempted to impeach him for the most frivolous reason ever. And 16 years later, when Obama actually embraced what was the Republicans' plan at the time, they deemed it "socialist" and did everything they could to block it! And that was only the beginning of a policy consisting in filibustering everything that didn't fit 100% to their dogma. Every time they had an occasion to, they blackmailed the President threatening to destroy the country unless they got what they wanted. Every. Single. Time. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine questioned Obama's patriotism (and heck, even his birthplace!) and called him an evil socialist muslim atheist, and spun whatever little thing they could find to make his life miserable.

This is the sad reality of American politics: one side has become completely insane and so focused to enact its radical agenda that it has lost any sense of the public good. No matter how conciliatory the other side can be (and hell, they have been), things won't change until the crazies get their ass kicked and finally die away.

You forget that political polarization was just as bad as it is today for most of American history.  Jefferson vs. Adams; Jackson vs. the anto-Jacksonians, the increasing sectional conflict before and after the Civil War, the Gilded Age... oh, and the Civil War itself.

The relatively high level of consensus we had in the mid-20th century was an aberration.  A good one, but an aberration all the same.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can think of only one period where the US were really as polarized as they are now, that which led up to the Civil War. The other periods you mention might have been marked by bitter political rhetoric, but they didn't disrupt the whole institutional system, and didn't prevent institutions from doing their job properly most of the time.